We’ve been hearing lots about the despicable practices linked to the fur industry for quite some time now and it’s always encouraging to hear that positive changes are occurring, such as PETA’s recent breakthrough to finally convince designer Donna Karan to stop using fur in all of her designs. Although Giorgio Armani (equally targeted by PETA’s latest parody Web site, done with the help of Project Runway star Tim Gunn) has not yet voiced his intentions to help bring forth a change, Donna Karan has promised that her 2009 fall line-up, as well as all other future releases, will be fur-free. Thank you Donna!
But what about wool? We’re generally left with the impression that wool is a ‘friendly’ product since we are continually sold on the idea that sheep happily relinquish their fleece since shearing is a ‘natural’ act which ‘must be done’ and so benefits all, including the lambs and sheep.
Regrettably, mass production and profitability entails an entirely different reality; the wool industry is an equally brutal and despicable business and buying wool supports a harsh cruelty towards wool bearing animals.
PETA has been investigating the industry for some time now, focusing on farms in Australia since it is the world's top wool producer. Their efforts have helped to expose this industry's horrendous hidden cruelty to animals, such as a reliance on what can only be described as a sick and barbaric practise called “mulesing,” wherein helpless lambs are forced on their backs so that chunks of skin and flesh can be “hacked from their rumps with gardening type shears.” This is done to discourage flies from laying eggs in the natural wrinkles formed by the sheep’s skin and is almost always performed without the use of anaesthetics since this would increase production costs. What’s usually not mentioned in regards to this practise is that the animals are often left with open wounds that become infested with maggots.
If that wasn’t enough, there’s more! Once the sheep are judged to produce too little wool and so to provide a low return (everything is always a ‘numbers’ game with these ‘farmers’ – it is, after all, a business ), they are considered useless and so they are inevitably sold off for their meat. Since these lambs and sheep were not raised specifically for the meat industry, they are considered as ‘low-grade meat’ and sold ‘en masse’ to slaughterhouses in the Middle East and North Africa (which is one of the reasons why lamb and mouton meat is cheap and abundant in most Maghreb countries).
As a result, millions of sheep are shipped off each year, tightly packed onto open-deck boats for a journey many will die from. But that’s ok; again it’s a numbers game and a ‘loss’ is expected and calculated into each shipment… But the reality is that the weaker sheep who would otherwise live on for many years often become ill – left to stand in their own excrements is no help - and they, along with the injured sheep, typically collapse and are trampled to death. Others die from exposure to the harsh elements at sea.
Those that survive the journey, arriving listless and terrified, are instantly dragged off to be slain, exsanguinated while still conscious, in rudimentary slaughterhouses.
Ironically, proponents of the wool industry describe the Australian sheep industry "as one of the most efficient and cost effective in the world" (RFID for Livestock and Animal Identification). All about numbers!!!
Is wool really worth all of that? Still not convinced or would like more info? Here are some very necessary sites advocating changes in this industry:
Images: "PETA counters False Claims" courtesy of Save the Sheep.com; "Effects of Mulesing" courtesy of www.free.org; "The Al Shuwaikh with bloody carcasses heaped at bow" and "Sheeps swimming in urine and feces" courtesy of Live Export Shame. .
. It was recently brought to my attention that on the afternoon of Feb. 20, my last post regarding my own interpretation of the Hulu ad was the subject of an overheated debate on the television forum found on Craigslist.
Somebody emailed me a link to the first thread and I read through – I was appalled by the ignorance and lack of tolerance being displayed. That people do not agree with what I have to say is one thing, but what blows me away is that not even one of the people who apparently didn’t hesitate to trash me and call me names – all behind my back, being totally unaware of this discussion – didn’t even have the gall to post a comment or express their own opinion in regards to my analysis directly on my blog; yet they were calling me an idiot, a jerk, someone who can’t have a good laugh, a pretentious and pompous ass amongst other things I'd never dare print here. This from people who’ve never met me and who, from what I gather from my site stats, didn’t even bother reading my other posts or learning anything about me.
What’s even more appalling was the sheer number of spelling and grammatical mistakes which appeared in the various posts from the people who took pleasure in calling me belittling and offensive names!
One fellow essentially called Canadians retarded and me an idiot because I make a reference to The Simpsons in the first paragraph. According to him The Simpsons stopped being funny 12 years ago and so anyone that still watches the show "has a sense of humor that sucks” (I could make an equally stupid claim and say that people who haven't watched The Simpsons for 12 years express themselves poorly... but I won't). Although this person didn’t have the bravery to point out what is funny, Fox should no doubt cancel the show - twenty years on the air and millions of fans are no match for a truly subjective and empty comment like that one!!!
Ironically, the only counter-interpretation of the advert offered was unbelievably empty and equally subjective; it essentially went like this: it’s funny and I like it so the 'idiot' (meaning me) is reading too much into it. This actually proved to be the entire basis of one woman’s argument who called me names behind my back and accused me of “going off the deep end” yet could not provide any reason as to why when another post asked her “how [I] went off the deep end.” According to her, the whole point of the commercial was to be funny (someone else pointed out that “no, it’s to sell a product") and I was obviously deranged for seeing a “virtual conspiracy” (whatever she means by ‘virtual’ in this context, I haven’t a clue) in it. Anybody familiar with the ad (you can see it in my previous post) has to laugh at this woman – the very idea set forth by the commercial deals with an alien conspiracy to rule the world!!! Hello! She obviously didn't get what I was saying - perhaps I should write a version for her that uses nothing more than monosyllabic words...
Another person, after calling me a “pompous idiot” because s/he “skimmed” through only the first page of my blog went on to make this comment: “So no content whatsoever is acceptable to him if it deviates the slightest bit from whatever PC mores he has cluttering up his damaged brain?” Not only is this person being totally judgemental and infantile, it is very obvious from his/her statement that s/he has no clue what mores are, and even more obvious that s/he also didn’t understand my interpretation of this ad. Further, I don’t see how s/he arrives at such a conclusion; if this person knew anything about me s/he would know that quite the opposite is true! However, I don’t just blindly ‘absorb’ everything thrown at me – I love to analyse and look behind the obvious meanings; I have an avid passion for literature and linguistics and having studied these fields for many years I have developed strong critical & analytical skills. Whether I'm wrong or right is up for debate, and I always do enjoy a good critical debate from which I can learn - but for me empty put downs and belligerent remarks that don't present valid arguments demonstrates a lack of intelligence.
So in the end, despite the brutal comments that were posted, no one - and I do mean no one - even put forward a concrete, empirically based counter-argument! All just empty opinions being passed off as professional judgements deemed to be better than my own. I wouldn’t even dare make such a claim of superiority; my Hulu post didn’t even dare make that claim, so who the f*** are these people?
And allow me to ask this: why else do ad companies hire psychologists and sociologists and a whole bunch of other specialists and hold panels and discussion groups and so forth before actually releasing an ad campaign? Apparently all they need is one good comedian…
Unfortunately, I don’t think the fellow arguing in my defence on the forum did much to improve my position; although I (obviously) agree with him, I have to admit that he did present his arguments in a fairly antagonizing way. But then I suppose it’s easy to get riled up in the face of such counter-productive idiocy…
Is it that whenever people feel challenged or when their own views are challenged, they become aggressive? And why am I not in the forum defending myself and my view? Because I can’t be bothered with childish name calling and such narrow-minded thinking. I would nonetheless love to be offered links to these people's blogs (if they have the energy and discipline to actually maintain one...) and see what kind of brilliant and above-reproach perceptions they are offering to warrant such holier-than-thou attitudes when most of the posts can be paralleled to scribbles on the bathroom walls of a junior high-school...
As mentioned earlier, if those people that called me names actually had valid arguments and were legitimately opposed to my view, they would have had the guts to post their comments directly on my blog rather than secretly act in such a mean and asinine way!
There! That was my therapy; I did need to vent. Now on to other things...
I believe this first aired during the last Superbowl game. Unfortunately, as I live in Canada, we weren't privy to the same ads – which now represent a good portion of the show – and so I didn’t actually see this ad until recently. And yes, for those of you that do know me, I was watching The Simpsons at the time; other than the news or our famed MeteoMedia channel, The Simpsons is about the only reason why I consider turning on my TV.
And unlike most people, I suppose, I actually like watching commercials as I find them absolutely useful indicators of societal mores and values, etc. This is probably due to the fact that I watch so little TV and so don’t see the ads ‘ad nauseum.’
I was lucky enough to catch this advert from the beginning – when my TV is on, odds are real good that I am also working on my computer and so I rarely see anything from beginning to end the first time – and it had succeeded in capturing my entire attention right till the end. Once it had finished and my snorts and giggles subsided, I didn’t know what to make of it. Brutal honesty from an advertiser always seems to shock, albeit the ending twist that undermines the entire premise.
As I watched the commercial, a phrase which had struck a deep chord with me when I took a media focused sociology course had instantly been brought to mind: TV is chewing gum for the eyes. Surprisingly enough, the commercial seems to make a direct reference to this somewhat famous Frank Lloyd Wright quote when Alec Baldwin says "TV will rot your brain" and later that it only turns it into a "mushy-mush" like substance. Although I did appreciate the commercial on one level, there was something about it that didn’t agree with me. At first I thought it was because the ending – learning that Alec Balwin is an alien – ridiculed the very idea that TV is today’s ‘opiate’ and so made light of the aforementioned truths. But after careful consideration I realized that it was the laissez-faire attitude being promoted that made me somewhat indignant; that phrase, “...there's nothing you can do to stop it” almost turns the ad into a plausible promo for bullies, powerful institutions and many governments and fascist-like entities across the world. As mere humans, we are helpless and without recourse – the alien-ruling-the-world idea reinforces this without being offensive (imagine if instead Baldwin had concluded with: “Because we're the US government, and that's how we roll.”).
A deconstruction of the advert essentially leads to this slogan: you are being controlled and dumb-ified; it’s the way it is, it’s the way it’s going to be, so you might as well enjoy it! Buy our product!
Nonetheless, you have to admire the ad's efficiency – Hulu became a well-known name overnight. Are people getting the same message? Doubtful; excessive TV seems to have eradicated that ability in many people…
Keep on clicking!
PDL
Those of you arriving from CL can read my comment below and the ensuing post as reply to all of that, thanks! - Added Feb. 21, 2009 7:08 PM
.
The world needs changing! No one (other than perhaps Bush and other Republican goons) can deny that things—especially those relating to the environment—are in a sorry state. Groups like Greenpeace, Peta, Unicef, Al Gore and the Alliance for Climate Protection etal. are each taking care of a segment of the major issues, ensuring that attention gets diverted to these causes, but in their fight to educate and bring forth major shifts in our habits and attitudes, some of the smaller fights or contributing factors to some of these big issues get overlooked.
That is why I am proposing the Anti-Coffee Stirrer Effort! Why? Because I figure that if I can stop people from using coffee stirrers, I will have helped to make quite a positive impact on the environment. Of course, I’m not targeting anything one uses to stir his/her coffee; spoons, sticks or whatever implements that get washed and reused are fine with me. However, plastic and wood stirrers that get instantly tossed out should be banned!
Although I am still trying to unearth worthwhile coffee stirrer related statistics substantiating the need to reduce (and hopefully eradicate) their usage, one can very well imagine the amount of plastic and wood that gets tossed in garbage pails all over the world on a daily basis, and this after being barely dipped and twirled—more as a compulsion than a necessity—in coffee.
“But what about my coffee?” you ask. Don’t worry; a world without stirrers won’t imply that you’ll be left to drink a two or three-tiered coffee! I have been enjoying perfectly mixed coffee for the past 16 + years without ever relying on a stirrer.
Here’s a secret very few people seem to know:
Put your sugar and milk in your cup before pouring the coffee! Then pour your coffee in the cup so that the contents get stirred and blended i.e. don’t pour in the coffee like you do with beer when you don’t want any foamy head; do the opposite! And it's the same deal for those of you that are relying on a majority of the differing coffee vending machines to get that required dose—put your milk and sugar in the cup first, then let the machine mix it all for you as it burbles the coffee into your cup.
And if you’re going to put a lid on your coffee, that’s just one more reason to avoid a stirrer. Why not just hold the lid firmly and give your cup a couple of shakes?
I haven’t mentioned anything in regards to reusable mugs as I figure most people should know about them. Nonetheless, I will simply say this: please use them!
I’ll eventually come back with stats to support my cause, but until then, please email this post to any habitual coffee drinker you know and let’s change the world!
Regrettably, mass production and profitability entails an entirely different reality; the wool industry is an equally brutal and despicable business and buying wool supports a harsh cruelty towards wool bearing animals.
Australia since it is the world's top wool producer. Their efforts have helped to expose this industry's horrendous hidden cruelty to animals, such as a reliance on what can only be described as a sick and barbaric practise called “mulesing,” wherein helpless lambs are forced on their backs so that chunks of skin and flesh can be “hacked from their rumps with gardening type shears.” This is done to discourage flies from laying eggs in the natural wrinkles formed by the sheep’s skin and is almost always performed without the use of anaesthetics since this would increase production costs. What’s usually not mentioned in regards to this practise is that the animals are often left with open wounds that become infested with maggots.
